191 comments

• Comment Link Wednesday, 15 May 2013 21:20 posted by Arjay

  I didn't realize until watching the debate how shallow the iqsquick process is. It'd have been a more valuable experience to watch the panel questioned by a skilled interviewer such as Charlie Rose. Viewers don't need 'bread and circus' before and after polling to indicate which side of a simplistic proposal is more believable.
  
  God? What defines god?
  
  The concept of god doesn't require eternal life. It's probable that when we die we'll return to the state that existed before our birth, no matter what our personal virtues and failings may have been.
  
  Science knows a great deal but can only speculate on parameters which define the limits of reality. God is one of many names for the universal process from which our existence stems.
  
  Humans are likely never to fully understand that process. For practical purposes everything that exists is part of a scientific miracle.
  
  Scientists propose! God doesn't.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 08 May 2013 20:12 posted by Carl Landsness

  I'm uncomfortable with the question... because of its right/wrong win/lose nature... and the emotional baggage attached to the "God" word. I'd prefer more win/win explorations into the forces that impact life... including the mystical aspects of life.

• Comment Link Tuesday, 07 May 2013 10:38 posted by Rick Cypress

  Most of you are missing the point. A (nondescript) god/deity cannot be proven to exist or not exist because that god/deity is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, as easily dismissed as it is asserted. Think of satirical examples such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Celestial Teapot, etc. However, if one is intellectual honest with oneself, one MUST admit that the god/deity they follow IS well described and DOES have characteristics and attributes that ARE falsifiable. Especially when talking about the Christian/Muslin/Jewish god(s). That particular god has attributes, widely accepted by its followers, and those claims such as physical manifestations, miracles, prayer answering, historicity of religious text and the contradictions and atrocities found within. These are all falsifiable, testable claims that when challenged, DO NOT stand up. That is why when it comes to the god of the bible and koran, he CAN be proven not to exist.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 01 May 2013 08:13 posted by John Covel

  The motion requires that God is within the rational grasp of methodological materialism. If a god is outside of empirical invalidation then there's no point in talking about whether or not God is refuted by science.
  
  It should be established by the opposition to the motion whether or not God can be invalidated. If God can be invalidated, then there are some important logical questions that comes to the forefront. A falsifiable God has to answer to some profound logical contradictions before we can even talk about empirical invalidation.

• Comment Link Tuesday, 30 April 2013 12:54 posted by Toby Mailman

  How can you have a debate, which by definition means using rational argument, to discuss "God" or religion, which depend, by definition, strictly on faith, which is the opposite of rational argument. No rational argument will win over people who believe in something based on faith, disregarding any evidence to the contrary.

• Comment Link Monday, 29 April 2013 01:25 posted by Ed Silha

  I think that the phrase "the incredibly shrinking god" (or gods) says it all. At one time god or the gods were incredibly powerful and in control of everyday life. As science began to provide explanations for things that had been unknown, those things were taken from the province of the gods and placed in the province of understanding.
  
  One rational approach to this discussion is to decide that questions with unknown answers (e.g., is there life after death) are neither evidence for god nor science, simply unknown. If that is done, it is not difficult to assign things that are known to the province of understanding, leaving nothing for god(s).

• Comment Link Thursday, 25 April 2013 11:25 posted by JT

  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute
  
  "Refute: To prove wrong by argument or evidence"
  
  
  Krauss and Shermer don't prove anything.
  
  In fact, Krauss starts off by saying:
  
  "We will show that Science refutes god, not that Science disproves god... which is two different things"
  
  No it isn't!
  
  And Shermer's statements "what seems more likely...." does nothing to prove anything.

• Comment Link Tuesday, 16 April 2013 08:14 posted by Sam

  Perhaps we might say science is the ongoing but fabulously incomplete search for causality which may someday discover evidence for the tenets of belief on a deity.
  
  Science is the accumulation of evidence that attempts to de- mystify what we do not yet understand. Belief shortcuts the process and provides comfort and structure without the pain of discovery.
  Neither refutes the other.

• Comment Link Monday, 15 April 2013 15:58 posted by Oriahna

  This was a very interesting debate. It is very refreshing to have people talk about opposing views without necessarily personally attacking each other. I do however feel that the topic of this debate is flawed. There should be a debate on whether scientific evidence can support the Creation theory. If you can determine that there is scientific evidence for Creation, then you can intellectually decide for your self if Science does or does not support the possibility of God. You can do this easily by having a section of time specifically used to talk about one type of science at a time. Examples being Biology, Genetics, Geology. Then each side produces their evidence for or against the proof of Creation and Intellectual Design.

• Comment Link Monday, 15 April 2013 13:16 posted by Shawn

  Here is the main problem I continually see. I am constantly reading about peoples opinions concerning weather a God/Creator exists. I find it hard to believe people denying a creator since science and medicine can not explain how you could be born with no parents and still be thought of as it being scientific and not magical.
  
  You don't need a magical God to have a creator. You don't have to believe He is magical. You do however have to know that when you look at a t.v. or a cellphone that someone someplace had the knowledge to do it and it wasn't done using magic.
  
  If you look at nature and the cycle of life two sexes are needed to create new life. Where did the cycle start? Where did life come from but life. Do you really think that it magically appeared as some scientists believe?
  
  I have read also some scientists refer to being able to recreate certain kinds of life in labs and use this as evidence for no need for a creator. Why did they need to do it if it didn't require a lab or scientist? Why not just say see life just appeared right in that bottle? The reason being is because it would not be science.
  
  I remember a story that I heard I won't go into it and just give a quick summary. It takes place in a bakery. The baker has a cake on the counter with a sign on it saying proof of evolution 10 million dollars. When asked about the cake the baker states that the cake has been there on that counter since his grandfather opened this store and no one has ever bought it. When asked why is it proof of evolution the man said "My grandfather opened this shop and the next day there was a cake on the counter that he didn't bake.
  
  To this day no one has tried to prove if the cake really did make itself. No one would believe him and he knows all about cakes.
  
  Why do people fall fools too fools?